Tiger337

Riley Greene may be down to one tool in a couple of years.

Do we know it's the same person?

His hitting peak was better. There is a a lot of uncertainty in fielding statistcs, but Whitaker ranks way ahead of Kent on every advanced metric I've seen, so I've got to believe he's got a big edge defensively. And Kent isn't that far ahead offensively overall (123 OPS+ vs 118). I do understand why Whitaker is not in. Leaving aside all the BS reasons, he never had an MVP type season which is pretty odd given how many really good sesons he had. You would think that he would have randomly had one elite season in all that.

21 runs saved.

I have been reading Michael Humphrey's book: Wizardry where he explains his Defensive Regression Analysis stat. According to this statistic, the second basemen we have been talking about had the following runs saved: Grich 133 Whitaker 101 Sandberg 79 Kent -11 Best second basemen ever: Frisch 224 Gordon 191 Mazeroski 149 Hubbard 137 Whitaker was 9th. Other Tigers Vina 51 Easley 38 Polanco 29 Gehringer 14 McAuliffe -4

If Whitaker dove more, he'd be in the Hall of Fame! There may actually be some truth to that

Whitaker was legitimate though. I don't care about gold gloves, but Whitaker was an excellent fielder by any metric.

Whitaker was better than Kent. Kent hit a liitle better, but Whitaker's superior fielding more than made up for it. Sandberg was better, but Whitaker lasted longer. Grich was slighly better for a short period, but Whitaker had more good years. Grich missed more time to injuries. Utley was better, but Whitaker had more good years. I'd put them all in expect maybe Kent. I've always had Kent on the bubble. You talk about the end of Whitaker's career like it was nothing. He hit a lot better than most platoon players and it wasn't a strict platoon. He accumulated enough plate appearances to get 4.7, 4.1, 2.5, 1.5 WAR from age 35 to 38. Lots of great hitters can't do what he did in the end. He also could still handle middle infield capably up until age 37 which is rare. His consistency and endurance was pretty special and I'm not just saying that as a fan boy.

Lou was a a compiler, but he was the best compiler in the history of the game! Seriously, 17 years with an OPS over 100 for a middle infielder without ever having without ever having an MVP type season. Nobody else has done that.

This is the reason Lou Whitaker gives for not being in the Hall of Fame and it may be one of the biggest. I would think the lifers on the Veterans Committee loves guys that stay in the game. When Whitaker said that, Denny McLain (one of the interviewers) asked him in a seemingly accusatory tone why he he didn't stay in the game. Whitaker said that he was dedicating his time to his religon and family. I don't think McLain understood that. 😀 That whole interview was probably the best Whitaker interview ever. He never sounded that good when he was playing. The Drunk Lou Whitaker interview where he ripped Jack Morris was a good one too!

Better than Matt Anderson.

The guy that was GM for just one year?

Right, Based on who is in the Hall of Fame, both Whitaker and Trammell belong. They are not Honus Wagner and Rogers Hornsby, but they are as good or better than half the players at their position. Saying thst Player X belongs in the Hall of Fame because he's better than Baines is a weak argument, but when you are as good or better than half the players at your position, that's a legitimate argument. I also think it's OK for a voter to be a small Hall of Fame guy who won't vote for Whitaker, but they need to be consistent. If that same person votes for David Ortiz and Jim Rice, then then he's not being honest.

I was thinking about him just the other day. I remembered him as a big slugger back in the 80s. When I looked him up, I was surprised that he never came close 40 homers. There weren't as many home runs back then, but I thought he would have reached that mark at least once. He was really good in his prime though - more of an all around hitter with high a batting average, lots of doubles, 30 homers per year. He was also a good defensive first basemen. He was also very consistent. He had almost the same OPS+ every year from 1981-1984: 1981 156 1982 156 1983 156 1984 157

There is no doubt that innings pitched for starters has become an important stat.